KARTAR SINGH Vs. JANGIR KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 19th Dec., 1987 whereby the application for amendment of the written statement was allowed on payment of Rs. 200.00 as costs.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for the grant of the declaration that he was the owner of one-half share out of one-third in suit land Admittedly, both the parties are equally related to Zora Singh who was the original owner of the suit land. Earlier, the defendants filed a suit claiming that the land, in dispute, was joint Hindu family coparcenary property. The said suit w is decreed. The plaintiff has challenged the said decree in the present suit. The defendants by way of the application for amendment of the written statement wanted to plead that it had been wrongly admitted that the land, in dispute, was joint Hindu family coparcenary property. As a matter of fact, it was self-acquired property of Zora Singh. That application was resisted by the plaintiff. However, the trial Court allowed the amendment on the ground that no prejudice can be said to be caused to the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed on 28th Feb., 1984 and that the plaintiff has closed his evidence. It was in the year 1987 that the application seeking amendment of the written statement was made. The defendants by virtue of the said application wanted to withdraw the admission made by them not in the present suit, but even in the earlier filed by them on the basis of which they got the decree. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the said application was not bona fide and if permitted to be allowed, it will re-open the whole matter again. The view taken by the trial Court in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal. In support of the contention the learned counsel relied upon Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills Vs. Laudha Ram and Co., AIR 1977 S.C. 680.